3 ms·

I'm not trying to be combative, but there are significant differences between public and private pensions that I don't think you're accounting for which stem fr

I'm not trying to be combative, but there are significant differences between public and private pensions that I don't think you're accounting for which stem from the legal mandates in the charter for how the public pension assets can be invested and the monopsony on the employment of public servants (e.g., there is no "competing" state trooper battalion operating at a better labor cost advantage). Pension funds do not necessarily impose an obligation on the operating budget of a municipality. That's what it means to say it can go broke. If it were the public's problem, it would be solvent. It's not like muni bonds. I'm with you on your description of the pitfalls in the private sector.

SilasX 9y ago
>I'm not trying to be combative, but there are significant differences between public and private pensions that I don't think you're accounting for which stem from the legal Then you agree that you need to address the parallel's I've drawn if you want to maintain that position? > (e.g., there is no "competing" state trooper battalion operating at a better labor cost advantage). Are you reading my comments? In both replies, I already explained how there are relevant ways in public pension funds experience this problem: workers can be scared into other countries, other jurisdictions, other jobs, and the underground economy, with the exact same effect on ability to meet obligations. If you believe this can't happen, you need to flesh it out a bit more. "It's not like there's another company they can work for lol" is how GM etc got into this mess. > Pension funds do not necessarily impose an obligation on the operating budget of a municipality. That's what it means to say it can go broke I don't know any non-trivial sense in which "a massive class of people expected pension payments that will be cut off" doesn't count as the public's problem. To everyone in the world looking at the this, the problem is that a) lots of people are expecting to receive pension money and b) lots government services need to be provided, and we can't afford to do both. You're saying it's "not a problem" simply because "you can just reneg on a) while paying b)"? That's a non-standard conception of "not a problem".

SilasX 9y ago

>I'm not trying to be combative, but there are significant differences between public and private pensions that I don't think you're accounting for which stem from the legal Then you agree that you need to address the parallel's I've drawn if you want to maintain that position? > (e.g., there is no "competing" state trooper battalion operating at a better labor cost advantage). Are you reading my comments? In both replies, I already explained how there are relevant ways in public pension funds experience this problem: workers can be scared into other countries, other jurisdictions, other jobs, and the underground economy, with the exact same effect on ability to meet obligations. If you believe this can't happen, you need to flesh it out a bit more. "It's not like there's another company they can work for lol" is how GM etc got into this mess. > Pension funds do not necessarily impose an obligation on the operating budget of a municipality. That's what it means to say it can go broke I don't know any non-trivial sense in which "a massive class of people expected pension payments that will be cut off" doesn't count as the public's problem. To everyone in the world looking at the this, the problem is that a) lots of people are expecting to receive pension money and b) lots government services need to be provided, and we can't afford to do both. You're saying it's "not a problem" simply because "you can just reneg on a) while paying b)"? That's a non-standard conception of "not a problem".